Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

incorrectly processing h-product #71

Open
dissolve opened this issue May 8, 2017 · 6 comments
Open

incorrectly processing h-product #71

dissolve opened this issue May 8, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@dissolve
Copy link
Contributor

dissolve commented May 8, 2017

https://github.com/microformats/tests/blob/master/tests/microformats-v1/hproduct/aggregate.json

parses description as e-description, when
http://microformats.org/wiki/h-product#Backward_Compatibility
says to process it as p-descrpition

@dissolve dissolve changed the title incorrectly processing h-product description incorrectly processing h-product May 8, 2017
@dissolve
Copy link
Contributor Author

dissolve commented May 8, 2017

I found another issue with this test as well.
It seems to be changing class="review hreview-aggregate" to p-review h-review-aggregate

http://microformats.org/wiki/h-product#Backward_Compatibility says

review - including compat root class hreview in the absence of h-review

unless the wiki needs updating here, the child should have type h-review and h-review aggregate

@dissolve
Copy link
Contributor Author

dissolve commented May 8, 2017

Finally inside that same h-review-aggregate, it is not properly grabbing the value
it should be using the value-class parsing

@gRegorLove
Copy link
Member

I believe the backcompat for review hreview-aggregate should be p-review h-review h-review-aggregate.

What's the expected h-review-aggregate.value?

@willnorris
Copy link
Contributor

I would find it confusing that review hreview-aggregate becomes p-review h-review hreview-aggregate, being both a review and an aggregate review. http://microformats.org/wiki/hproduct is clear that its review field is expected to be either h-review OR hreview-aggregate.

I would imagine that the intent of the backcompat note is that if a review property of an hproduct has no explicit root class (either hreview or hreview-aggregate), then treat is as though it were hreview. If that is true, then perhaps the note should be updated to read:

review - include compat root class h-review in the absence of hreview or hreview-aggregate

@willnorris
Copy link
Contributor

though I guess that hreview and hreview-aggregate are similar enough that it might not matter to have a microformat with both types?

@gRegorLove
Copy link
Member

@willnorris I think you're right with your first comment. I was thinking of it too literally, "first upgrade the review, then the hreview-aggregate," without considering the contents. The content is definitely an aggregate, so p-review h-review-aggregate makes sense.

I'll discuss updating the h-product spec separately.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants